[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm obviously aware that young people get cancer, although, it's not true to say that it doesn't discriminate. More than half of cancer deaths are in people aged over 75, and over 80% are in those over 65. Under 40 the rate drops dramatically. Anyway, that's not really the point: I'm not talking about what we would or wouldn't do for our children. I am (loosely) socialist in nature and totally agree that people SHOULD be willing to have their taxes ramped up in order to support an aging population. I'm also a realist, though, and I know that people gripe like crazy when taxes go up by a penny, let alone by the significant amount it would take to make this a reality.

Also when I say "bleaker lives" I'm not talking about higher taxes / less money - I'm talking about the fact that the vast majority of people would, in effect, have to "work themselves to death". I'm just looking at that from a personal perspective, I guess. I would rather retire at 60 and die at 75, than retire at 89 and drop at 90.

No one is disputing that young, vibrant people dying of cancer is an absolute tragedy. I just sometimes wonder, should there be an upper age limit (like 70?) when trying to help people to live forever becomes a bit more morally ambiguous.

..I think that humans in general 'gripe' anyway, I mean I think it's in human nature to do so but specifically with taxes..?...it's because they're one of those things that we have no control over, not paying them..I mean how those taxes are spent/those decisions and the 'gripes' are not that they're in any way begrudged but more the NHS issues atm and rising taxes if people saw them V a declining health system/declining school systems etc..?..but focus on spending with something an individual taxpayer wouldn't believe in or agree with...cancer research/cancer treatment funding, I can't see many people ever not agreeing with as a 'personal investment'...